And seeing by Mr. S. children were not baptized by John and yet all Judea and Jerusalem and all the regions round about Jordane came to Johns Baptism Mat. 3.5 I hope he may be perswaded that countrie and housholds may be baptized and yet children ignorant and profane according to Christs command may justly be debarred of the said Gospel-Ordinance Mr. S. ch 7. p. 49. 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children unclean but now are they holy Answ All that are of Mr. S's judgement are so partial and do so apparently contradict themselves in the application of holiness as pretending it relates unto childrens Baptism in that as they pretend to bring children into the Church in that they say they are holy so on the contrary they excommunicate them out of the Church from being partakers or members of the Body or Church in the Lords Supper because they want saith and holiness which is required in all communicants Therefore I care the less to trouble my self or others in further answering this wrangling consequence for they themselves shew sufficiently that it is not relative holiness as being appropriated to God as the vessels in the temple 1 Sam. 21.5 but it is the holiness of conversation which we nor they cannot see in a childe the ground with faith of admission into an Ordinance which rule as they walk by in admission unto the Supper so by the same rule they ought to walk in the admission into the Ordinance of Baptism And therefore Mr. T. is not as Mr. S. sayth too critical to enquire whether children holy inherently imputatively or invisibly for unless there be a manifestation of holiness as the fruit of the inward grace we see not a disciple and therefore man being judge of Baptism cannot by the rule or commission of Christ judge a childe to be baptized And therefore as Fryer Toiâ—is consequence That because Angels were holy we may pray Hallowed be thy name so Mr. S. pretending children are holy ergo we may baptize them is equally to be condemned Mr. S. chap. 8 9. In which he endeavours from the cutting off the Jews and ingraffing in of the Gentiles to relate to a visible Church-membership in answering Mr. Tombs eight Arguments to the contrary To which I answer That without any partiality I cannot see but that Mr. T 's eight arguments are so unanswered by Mr. S. that it were to eclipse Mr. T 's light and to take upon me an unnecessary task to answer Mr. S. Mr. Tombs's eight Arguments shining more glorious through the opposition made against them That I may therefore onely hint something that may further discover the mystery of cutting off and graffing in c. I conceive it cannot be understood of visible Church-membership which is but a consequence and effect of Preaching but hereby God hath declared in a more general way his total withdrawing away of his presence as denying the Jews and affording of the Gentiles the means of salvation So that we may understand root and branch as root and rush or branch is explained Isai 9.14 And therefore as Paul Acts 13.46 sayth It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken unto you but seeing you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life lo we turn to the Gentiles thus there was a cutting off and ingraffing in rejecting the Jews and affording of the Gentiles of the means of salvation To proceed Mr. S. chap. 10. pag. 88. sheweth the harmony of Matth. 19. with Mark 10. and Luke 18. concerning the bringing of Infants to Christ and his acts towards them Answ Not to occasion discord to such a harmony the ground of Mr. Philipus consequence which I though thought many are not of that opinion the strongest consequence that is pretended for Infant-baptism therefore that Mr. S. c. may see that we do desire to declare that we are so acted with the Spirit of Christ and his Apostles to follow his steps 1 Pet. 2.21 who is our forerunner Heb. 9.20 in every thing whereby the reign of Christ in raising men up in the spirit of the Apostles and Prophets Rev. 20. may be made visible that we may profess to imitate Christ Miracles excepted in all things in that Christ in all things was the great servant of God in obeying Isai 42.1 Therefore I humbly conceive they are not to be judged that are made willing to imitate Christ as in praying for a blessing for meat and drink and to bless the elements of bread and wine in the Lords Supper if they also shall in imitation of Christ bless children by praying for them yet in this we have not the least ground at all for the Gospel-ordinance of baptism though herein our Hannab-like love and care of children to seek God for them and that they may be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is discovered Mr. S. chap. 11. pag. 103. wherein the method of God in the Old Testament of a administring Ordinances in families and baptizing housholds in the New Testament how far it contributes to Infants baptism Answ Though I acknowledge as Mr. S. hath declared that Abraham and his house was circumcised and might alleadge that Abraham had no children in his house Ishmael being thirteen yeers old and Isaac as yet unborn when Abraham was circumcised yet this needeth not to be alleadged for Mr. S. cannot prove that Abraham was brought into the Church he being in the Church before and Israel his son if he were called to offer or bring his offering unto the altar was also a visible member of the Church Psal 50.5 And besides Circumcision being but the signe of a temporal covenant Gen. 17.8 11. as I have before fully proved therefore I see no ground from Abraham's houshold being circumcised to be a president or method as you call it for bringing of children which cannot profess seeing upon profession Christ hath ordained all to be called to the Ordinance of Baptism And that which puts all out of doubt the Scripture it selâ— clearly removes this scruple or supposition in that when whole housholds were baptized as in Acts 10. Cornelius and all his house feared God and of the Jayler and his houshold that was baptized it is said that he and all his house heard the word of God Acts 16.32 was baptized ver 33. believing in God with all his house vers 34. And when Paul baptized the houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1.16 it 's said in the same Epistle chap. 16. vers 15. that the houshold of Stephanus addicted themselves to the ministery of the Saints so that there is a constant method to the contrary If there then had been a childe in Lydia's house she going to hear not knowing of Baptism a thousand families not having little children as either not being married barren or ancient I conceive the like would have been mentioned And therefore I do not say as Mr. S. saith chap. 6. pag 47 that
command of Christ and that very way which Christ had submitted unto when he like the Eunuch went down and came out of the water after he was baptized I can say no more but without any acrimony declare my Christian judgement as by the fruits doth appear that so many Scriptures are fulfilled in Mr. Baxters self-expressions that herein he hath like the troubled Sea cast not onely mire and dirt on the face of the Saints but hath calumniated the Ordinances of Jesus Christ so that in these two Arguments the smoak in the Temple hath blinded his eyes and as he is looked upon by the common people and cried up in defending this practice of popery the taile of the beast hath strucken him as a starre to the earth or brought him to a compliance or friendship with the world where I leave him to God that can raise him not doubting but if he were further discipled then by education he will see that all that he hath spoken against the Ordinance and renowned Mr. Tombes as hay and stubble shall suffer burning However I leave all men to judge how unjustly he hath alledged a Child to be a Disciple and therefore leaving Mr. Baxter I do friendly betake my self to answer Mr. Sidenham An Answer to Mr. Sidenham 's Book INTITULED A Christian Sober and Plain Exercitation on two grand Practical Controversies of these Times Infant-Baptism Singing of Psalms Mr. S. chap. 1. page 1. BEfore I enter into the main Questions handled in this Discourse first let this be considered that there is nothing in all the New Testament against baptizing of Infants noâ— any hinâ— from any express word dropping from Christ nor his Apostles nor any phrase though never so much strained doth forbid such an act Answer If you will understand nothing in Scripture to be expresly against any thing except it do by name exclude â—t then Ships Bells and unbelieving Gentiles c. are not expresly prohibited to be baptized for this is repugnant to the wisdom of God and man to express the prohibiting of any thing by name when the same thing as not spoken unto in another thing is excluded and therefore when Christ bade Thomas put his finger into his side Peter and John they not being Thomas which was spoken unto without naming of them were expresly by Christs word prohibited And so the female though never named was expresly prohibited when the male was commanded to be circumcised Upon the same account Infants though not named are expresly prohibited to be baptized or to partake of the Lords Supper though thereby the Church is made one body 1 Cor. 10.26 in that none but those that have faith and examine themselves are commanded to receive the Ordinances Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 8.36 37. 1 Cor. 11.28 And therefore as by confession of those that are of contrary judgement there is express Scripture to keep Children from the Lords supper so we have express Scripture to keep them from Baptism until they shall according to the command of Christ be discipled by teaching and shall profess the faith in the Gospel Mr. S. endeavouring pag. 2 3 4 5 6. shewing by divers Reasons why Consequences are to be approved of to this I answer Answ We do allow of Consequences provided they be not as in case of Baptism brought in to contradict an express command or example of Christ and his Apostles to the contrary And yet though Mr. S's Consequences be such as oppose the express command of Christ as not to deny his Plea for information and tryal of the Truth I shall not deny to answer them Mr. S. chap. 2. pag. 9. The first great thing in this controversie is to consider the nature of this covenant which is the first foundation of the priviledge of believers and their seed and as it was first made to Abraham and his seed both Jews and Gentiles And if we finde the same Covenant reaching Gentile believers and their children as Abraham and his we cannot be denyed the new external signe and seal of the said Covenant Answ That the nature of the Covenant should be the foundation-priviledge of beleivers and their seed though I should as others have grant him yet how justly upon triall I conceive it will appear that the Covenant which Mr. S. and Mr. B. looketh at if it be truly according to its nature discovered they will come short of their expectations for it appears unto me that the Covenant only relates to temporall promises in which it had so large extent that all the Nation claimed it yea circumcision was a meanes whereby every one was made of the Nation or endenized Exod. 12.48 so that the Nation claimed it as their distinguishing fleshly character Gen. 17.11 being their entayl to an earthly inheritance for the discovery whereof and that we may see the true rise and motive cause of the institution of this covenant whereof circumcision is a signe which Mr. S. I suppose would have to be the foundation of the priviledge of believers thus it appeareth Gen. 15.1 that God telling Abraham upon his complaint of being childless and asking God what he would give him God said he would multiply his seed as the Starres of Heaven for number ver 5. which Abraham believing it was imputed unto him for righteousness ver 6. upon which same day God made a Covenant with Abraham ver 18. so that Gen. 17.12 God relates again the same covenant with Abraham that his seed all that should relate to Abraham should possess the land of Egypt to the great river Euphrates therefore as a signe token of this temporall Covenant God ordained circumcision as his token thereof betwixt God and his people Gen. 17.11 and however Mr. S. and Mr. B. c. have wrested the Scripuâ—e as I shall by and by shew in making this temporall Covenant a Covenant of grace and as relating unto the admission into the Church yet I hope fully and clearly to prove the contrary for as though the Lord would undeceive and satisfie the Jews why he tooke away the first old Covenant on which Mr. S. and Mr. B. c. like the Jews do too much dote he declareth himself Heb. 8.7 saying that if the first Covenant had been good that is if it had related to the good of their souls then there had been found no place for the second ver 7. So that the covenant which was taken away was the covenant of temporal promises as the contents to Heb. 8. calls it whereof circumcision was the signe Gen. 17.11 for the cause that God alleadgeth why he tooke away the old Covenant is fully and plainly declared Exod. 6.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. by which it doth appear that that Covenant of which circumcision was a token was abolished in all intents and purposes and the new Covenant not made according to the old Covenant is onely established Heb. 8.9 10. and therefore the old Covenant which is abolished
upon which Mr. S. would build a foundation is fallen to the ground and how then shall his doctrine for which he hath no foundation to make the seed of believers Church-members by vertue of the Covenant of which circumcision was a token be able to stand seeing it is so absolutely condemned and taken away M. S's and M. B's consequence for circumcision cannot be admitted of that Children upon that pretence should have baptisme of which Mr. S. is much mistaken in that he calleth baptisme the new externall signe and seal of the Covenant he having no Scripture to prove what he saith neither can he prove that baptisme is a seal at all neither is there any such thing in the covenant to be signed or sealed he as conceiteth Yet Mr. Sidenham p. 10. Saith First and chiefly we affirm this meaning circumcision was the same in substance with the Covenant administred under the Gospel since Christs coming in the flesh and spirit Secondly It was founded on pure grace Answ First then and chiefly I answer that here is a confounding of things that differ circumcision being called a Covenant but figuratively Gen. 17.10 It being in its own Nature the token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 so that Mr. Sidenham saying that circumcision is the same in substance with the Covenant in the Gospel is partly mistaken as also in comparing circumcision with baptisme he being not able to finde any proof in Scripture that baptisme is either Covenant or Seal Secondly And that circumcision is not the same in substance with the Covenant under the Gospel Heb. 8 expresly declareth that when the Covenant whereof circumcision is a token and the new Covenant are compared that the new Covenant is established upon better promises Heb 8.6 then a temporall inheritance And yet Mr. Sidenham would have the best of promises in circumcision as in the next place doth appear in that he saith that circumcision was founded on pure grace and that it was a pure Covenant of grace Gal. 3.16 17 18 19 29. Answ That it may truly and clearly appear First that the Scriptures he produceth witness against him And secondly that he hath not rightly applied them let us observe 1. That that which he alleadgeth Gal. 3.16 that the promises were not made to Abrahams seeds as of many but as of one to thy feed which is Christ though we take this for Christ mysticall as Mr. Sidenham would have it yet here is nothing relating to circumcision in which if we mind it is said the promises were made not to the seeds which was of Hagar and strangers as well as of Isaac which promise had respect to circumcision therefore those promises being excluded which had respect to the seeds of many there is nothing of circumcision spoken in the 16. ver but of the promise which relates to Gen. 22.16 17 18. and that ver 17. speaketh nothing of circumcision there are three things mentioned in the said verse Covenant Law and Promise the first two whereof the Covenant and Law are onely named as that they could not or cannot disannull the Promise which is made as I have proved before unto Abraham Gen. 22.16 17 18. and unto Abrahams seed which are the children of God by grace and faith called to walk in the steps of Abraham Rom. 4.11 12. as I shall presently more fully declare therefore in that God made a gracious promise to Abraham because Abraham did believe in God when he should have sacrificed his sonne Isaac therefore this promise hath respect to Gen. 22.18 for you see this is not called a Covenant but a promise which was made to Abraham ver 16 17. and therefore that all that is spoken by the Apostle ver 18. as is above mentioned as the verses are alledged by Mr. Sidenham Gal. 3.16 17 18 19. doth not hold forth any thing to make Mr. Sidenhams pretence that circumcision is founded on pure grace or to be a Covenant of pure grace is fully discovered And therefore 2. That in the next place I may make it appear that Mr. S. hath not rightly apprehended these Scriptures in calling circumcision from thence a Covenant of pure grace This I say To be founded on pure grace or that God of his pure grace or good will was pleased to look on Abraham so as to give him a temporal promise or a seed according to the flesh is not to be denied yet this makes not the gift to be pure grace as if God in his pure grace give the wicked meat drink and cloathing doth not prove that their meat drink and clothing is pure grace Therefore however circumcision the signe of temporal mercies was given on Gods part of his pure grace it makes not the Covenant to be pure grace which as I said in the contents of the 8. chap. to the Hebrews is called a Covenant of temporall promises for all spirituall promises which were made to Abraham were not by vertue of circumcision but in that as the Apostle saith Gal. 3.8 God foreseeing that he would justifie the Heathen through faith preached the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed which words are expresly mentioned Gen 22.18 and cannot be found Gen. 17. circumcision relating to Nations that should come of Abrahams seed in which temporall promise the Gentiles had no Interest but as they submitted to the Jews Therefore it s clear enough or the Sun cannot shine more clearly then that the seed of Abraham being believers or walking in the steps of Abraham Gal. 3.7 9. Rom. 4.12 circumcision the token of a temporall covenant did not hold forth this spirituall mercy which God upon Abrahams sacrificing of his Sonne promised Abraham even to bless all Nations in him as hath been at large discovered And therefore that which Mr. Sidenham saith that the Apostle useth the same expression in Heb. 8.10 where he speaketh of the new Covenant which was as Mr. Sidenham pretendeth used Gen. 17. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed In this he may see how partially he is blasted to favour his own imagination For first God doth not onely say as in Gen. 17. I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee but in the new Covenant he saith not onely that He will be a God unto them and they shall be a people unto him but to shew that this new covenant is upon better promises God sheweth that he will work a work of grace even to write his Lawes in their hearts c. this God never promised in circumcision and that God in circumcision did onely it relating to all the world promise no more then to be a God in providence unto them or to make good his promise or covenant to give them the promised Land read Levit. 26.44 45. 2 King 13.22 23. and there you shall fully be informed and therefore you may see that circumcision is no covenant of pure grace or equivalent with that new covenant under the
22.16 17 18. compared with Gal. 3.6 7 8 9. Rom. 4.12 16. Now that Abraham was a believer before Gen. 17. so that God did bless Abraham and that circumcision did seal his Faith he had though not as the Apostle saith by circumcision Rom. 4.11 I do grant but that God gave Abraham in circumcision more then Abraham begged of God Gen. 15.3 48. or that God did give Abraham more then an inheritance of which circumcision was a token Gen. 17.4 11. this I defend and that therefore circumcision was not an administration to make Church-members I desire this being so much mistaken to produce these reasons to the contrary 1. Because they did not circumcise in the Temple or by a Priest but a woman Exod. 4.25 and others did circumcise Josh 5.3 2. A stranger by circumcision was not said to be of the Church but as one of the Nation Exod. 12.48 and if any refused to be circumcised they were not to be excommunicated out of the Church but to be cut off out of the Nation Gen. 17.14 and that the Church is not the Nation Reason the seventh proves 3. The Female was not circumcised and yet Hanna and other Women were of the Church and if in the Man the Woman might be admitted into the Church why might not the Woman in the Man be baptized and receive the Lords Supper since they would have baptism to succeed circumcision 4. Because God said that the Covenant of which circumcision was a signe Gen. 17.11 was a covenant in the flesh Gen. 17.13 and God did never promise more then a temporall inheritance in that covenant Gen. 15.3.18 compared with Gen. 17.3 4 5 8. 5. In the case of Dinah marrying with Sichem all that was desired of him was this that they should be one people if Sichem c. would be circumcised which was done without any change of religion Gen. 34.22 24. and though it might be supposed as we do with our children they would endeavour to learn them and make them submit to their Religion yet all this endeavouring like the paines that we take in the nurture and admonition of our Children did not admit or make them visible Church-members but onely made preparation for their admission as the next reason will fully clear it 6. Because to the Jews God said Gather my Saints together unto me those that have made a covenant with me by sacifice Psal 50.5 and Zeph. 3.9 it s prophesied both of Jews and Christians that they should serve God with one consent Therefore Children not sacrificing whereby there might be a visible appearance of Faith and Repentance and they not being willing or knowing to serve God with one consent could not be of the visible gathered Church or they were not visible Church-members for to make a visible Church member there must be something appearing in the party that is to be admitted so as to give his consent but in a Child we have or see nothing that represents the face of a Church-member 7. Children by circumcision were not made Church-members because after they had been circumcised they were presented unto the Lord in the Temple and our Saviour did no more for them when they were brought unto him then bless them by praying for them Mat. 19. 8. God was said to have a Church in the Wilderness Act. 7.38 and yet for forty yeers together they were not circumcised and therefore circumcision made not a Church if baptism as Mr. Sidenham saith doth not make one for so he saith pag. 166. Baptisme doth not forme a Church 9. Because the Gentiles had a Church as Mr. Baxter hath notably proved by Job c. and Abraham was of the Church before and yet the Gentiles were never circumcised and Abraham had not been circumcised but that God made circumcision a signe of the covenant which was to give him a seed by Sarah and to make him a Father and Sarah a Mother of divers Nations Gen. 17.6 16. for as all Nations whether Jews or Gentiles are blessed in Abraham this was not by circumcision but by oath and promise made to Abraham Gen. 22. â—6 17 18. as the Apostle Gal. 3.9 compared with Heb. 6.13 14. fully declareth and therefore we do not look at circumcision that it did admit unto the Church or that baptism should succeed it circumcision relating to temporal promises 10. Because these words in the covenant whereof circumcision is a signe I will be thy God and o thy seed after thee were onely spoken of God that he might manifest himself to be a God in providence to make his temporal promise good to Abraham and such strangers that should sojourne with him God excepting against none in circumcision as he doth in point of salvation and therefore God expresly declared his meaning that in respect of the covenant whereof circumcision was a signe he was their God to make good his promise to give them the Land of Canaan Levit. 26.44 45. and in that he condemned and tooke away this circumcision making a new covenant not according to the old covenant declares that the old covenant had no spiritual promises Heb. 8.6 7 8 9. 11. That Mr. Sidenham and Mr. Baxter making circumcision to bring Children into the Church is but from their own wrested consequences for there is no such Scripture that saith Circumcision makes a Child a member of the Church neither is there any Scripture that can prove circumcision a covenant of pure grace or that baptism doth succeed it upon which they ground their conclusion or consequence 12. If baptism should succeed circumcision then it could not be said that baptism is the like figure of Noahs Ark 1 Pet. 1.21 in which there was no Children nor did any enter into it but such as believed the word preached unto them 13. They were debtors to the Law not by covenant or contract the Law being made four hundred and forty yeers after circumcision Gal. 3.17 and therefore they were debtors to the Law by consequence as a thing that followed and was after imposed upon the people so that they were not circumcised upon that account 14. They were twice circumcised The first time in token they should inherit the promised Land And the second time as being come to possess it Joshua 5.2 therefore circumcision did not make them Church-members The great thing then which Mr. Sidenham pag. 9. speaketh of in this controversie the nature of the covenant being fully and plainly discovered it s too apparent that he hath been too much discipled by the Jewish rabbies in making the Covenant by their traditions and doctrine greater then ever God intended it whereby the promise and oath God made to Abraham whereby he is the Father of the faithful hath been over-looked Therefore Mr. Sidenham failing to make good his hinge and maine weight in thinking to make all promises to Abraham as Father to the faithful to be held out in circumcision and that it was a seal of the covenant
and baptism a seal of the new covenant in all which his errors and mistakes have been plainly discovered yet I would not have Mr. Sidenham or any of his judgement to think that I have denied him that which may be some have or he hath expected to have granted him as I should readily have done if it had been Gods truth in relation to the covenant whereof circumcision was the signe as though if Mr. Sidenhams and Mr. Baxters consequences were granted him he could thereby prove his infant-baptism for this I say that though he were certain that a Child were in the new covenant of the Gospel yet no visible fruit of holiness of profession of faith coversation and willing desire of baptism being made to appear secret things belonging unto God and we being commanded as any shall be discipled to baptize them it s not in Mr. Sidenham c. to gainsay Christs will and power to make the admission into the Church according as he fancieth by any pretended pretences consequences or precedents or to admit a Child or ignorant person not being by Christ tolerated seeing according to his own pretended light he did not regulate circumcision to a former administration neither is there any Scripture to prove that baptism succeedeth circumcision but both by command and example the Scripture doth prove the contrary therefore in the simplicity of the Gospel except Mr. S. will flee from Scripture and justifie the falling away from the faith so that in this point of Infant-baptism he should comply with the tradition of Popery he hath hitherto produced nothing to uphold his controversie in this great thing foundation and hinge which I have answered To proceed then Mr. S. p. 22. Infants if believers were never cast out of the visible Church of Christ of which they were once in Answ According to that maxime Omnis privatio implicat habitum you know that every dispossession implieth a possession Infants cannot therefore be cast out of the Church before he can prove them admitted and if Mr. S. or any man living can tell us by what visible administration Children were admitted visible Church-members before the time of Abraham or in the Gentiles Church or by what Scripture they are said to be admited members by cirumcision I shall admire him and them and acknowledge their discovery desiring him till then not to conclude that we do cast them out or deny them any thing that can be conscientiously granted them Mr. S. chap. 4. p. 30. In that Mr. Sidenham doth make a twofold distinction of being in covenant in relation to the election of grace and secondly to be in covenant in facie visibilis ecclesiae Answ To this I answer first that onely the elect are in covenant of saving faith which is called as he saith by Divines intentionally in covenant as God intending onely to save them I agree onely this may be observed 1. That the election of Grace is not by the Covenant whereof Circumcision is a signe 2. That if upon this account that is Predestination we should look on children then children of believers as well as believers Papists Turks and Infidels may be in the Election even before they be called and yet this will give no liberty to children until their secret election be made visibly appearing through a gracious call Act. 2.38 2. In that Mr. S. tells us that there is a being in Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae in the face of a visible Church I confess that a visible Church should have a race so that they may see hear and speak with one another to yeeld up themselves to serve God with one consent Zeph. 3.9 but how he will make Infants in swadling-clouts such visible members I know not For want of such a face of the Church Mr. S. I suppose excludes Infants from the Lords Supper though he confesseth that thereby the Church is made one body pag. 169. and so doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.17 And I do absolutely deny that ever there was any such Covenant by vertue of which God said a childe should be counted a member of the visible Church Therefore Mr. S's Scriptures to prove that by Covenant children were brought into the Church are to be examined 1. As to that place Rom. 9.4 which Mr. S. produceth I answer that it onely holds forth the several priviledges belonging to the Jews but doth not hint so much as one word that by Circumcision children were brought in facie visibilis Ecclesiae or made members of the visible Church 2. To that place Deut. 29.10 12 13 14. I answer It is not at all proved that Circumcision did at all relate to Religion but that God said that he would make them a people as he promised Gen. 17.6 16. to make Abraham a father of many nations and so Sarah should be a mother of many nations as I have proved before of which Covenant Circumcision was the signe 3. To that place Joh. 15.2 and Job 1.11 I cannot see the least conjecture of a Covenant 4. To the last place Psal 50.5 Gather my saints together that is make a visible Church This I acknowledge but that any children were gathered the next words tell him who they be that God would have gathered even such as have made a covenant with sacrifice not such as are of the covenant whereof circumcision is but a signe but such as have made a covenant with me saith God in sacrifice so that we finde no shadow of proof in the places produced by M. S. that children are of the visible Church To another relation Mr. S. chap. 5. page 35. endeavours to open that place Acts 2.39 For the promise is made unto you and your children c. Answ In the pretended opening of which Scripture Mr. S. indeed hath so over-veyled the same and shut it up in Logical Distinctions Critical Questions and Wrested Applications that I may say of this Scripture as the parents said of their son It so clearly shineth that it is able to answer for it self These be the words Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the promise is made unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Now the promise here which Mr. S. omitted as the antecedent to be related was to receive the holy Ghost by such as did repent and were baptized and who are here said to repent to be baptized to receive the holy Ghost but such of them and of their children and them that are afar off and of their children with this restriction even to as many and no more then the Lord our God shall call So that here is a plain restriction and application to whom this promise is made even to as many as the Lord our God shall call And therefore no heart could desire a more full and plain expression of the minde of God And therefore Mr.
S. hath not opened but shut up or turned the stream of those gracious expressions of Scripture And yet upon conclusion after a great deal of discourse this chapter consisting of almost a sheet of paper he concludes that however this Scripture holds forth the promise of believers of the Gospel both Jews and Gentiles and their children which is true if the last words wherein all the main business depends be applied whereby we may see to whom this promise is made even to as many as the Lord our God shall call Mr. S. chap. 6. pag. 45. having hitherto endeavoured to plead his own cause by the strongest Arguments which by consequence he could produce now endeavouring to throw down our foundation in this sixth chapter he tells us that our great plea from Mat. 3.8 9. is made vain These be Mr. S's words That we may still take off the Objections let us view that place so much stood on Matth. 3.8 9. When John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his Baptism he sayth O generation of vipers who hath forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come Bring forth fruits meet for repentance And think not to say that you have Abraham to your father for I say that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham From this text they gather The pretence of being Abrahams children could not give them a right to Baptism And if John denyed Abraham's seed upon that account much more would he the adopted children That this is no such ominous place against Infant-baptism consider who they were he spake unto the Pharisees and Sadduces men of age and degenerate from Abrahams faith persons that lived in their own works and righteousness therefore he calls them a generation of vipers which was not as they were Abrahams children but as they walked not in Abrahams steps and were quite degenerate Answ To which I answer that the plea is not vain as Mr. S. in the contents of his chapter pretendeth that is by us made from Matth. 3.8 9. though to obscure the light that therein shineth or for Mr. S. to light his candle or gloss or interpretation to darken the sun-light of express Scripture is labour in vain in that 1. I say that Matth. 3.8 9. in the general is directly against Infant-baptism in that none but such as have faith and repentance must think to be baptized is as clear a place as can be desired or pleaded for 2. That the pretence or consequence from Circumcision from this of Mat. 3.8 9. Think not to say you have Abraham to your father is also condemned it appears that John did not judge them to have any benefit or priviledge as being Abrahams seed according to the Law Rom. 4.16 whereby Abraham was their father by circumcision Gen. 17.5 16. And therefore John apprehending the Pharisees and Sadduces as Mr. S. c. do to stile themselves through this pretended priviledge from Abraham without looking home for faith and repentance which every childe of Abraham should have which calls Abraham father by faith as onely they that believe ought to do Gal. 3.7 therefore to undeceive the Pharisees and Sadduces and to unbottom them and to throw down their sandy foundation that John in the simplicity of the Gospel might be downright with them though it 's true that Mr. S. sayth that he did not call them a generation of vipers as they were Abrahams seed yet that they might not through fleshly confidence make their plea or rest upon this account that they might be baptized being but Abrahams seed according to Law and not by faith he tells them to undeceive them saying Think not to say that you have Abraham to your father as that you should think upon this account that I should baptize you therefore John without as much as taking notice which he would have done if there had been cause of any legal priviledge they had by Abraham to plead for Baptism onely exhorts them to faith and repentance by which they are the children of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 which John makes the ground of his admittance unto Baptism unto which Gospel-ordinance none but a taught disciple by the express and plain words of Christ ought to be admitted And therefore our plea that the pretence of being Abrahams children by Law or Circumcision could not give a right to Baptism as hath been before often proved is very warrantable so that John did not desire to dispossess them or question them as the Legal seed or children of Abraham but onely let them know that they ought not to have so much as a thought to get Baptism though they should think to say We have Abraham to our father which in other respects it was both lawful for them to think profess and affirm that they were Abrahams children according to the Law but yet not to plead it as a consequence for Baptism much less for their childrens And but that I strive not to take advantage upon every occasion it 's an easie thing to prove by the words of Christ in that he did approve of the Pharisees to sit in Moses chayr and of their doctrine and â—n that they as the word Pharisee signifieth did expound the Scripture and that the Sadduces were strict living men that gave much to the poor though they admitting of nothing but the letter of the Scripture denyed the resurrection yet as Authors testifie they were the best of the Jewish Church and did uphold circumcision though as many that pretend to the Church they stood for traditions and had their failings and through unbelief in Christ were a generation of vipers yet that they were quite cut off and degenerated from Abrahams seed by the Law he cannot prove as may appear by Christ Joh. 8.37 39. And therefore John not approving of them upon this account as being Abraham's seed according to the Law makes it clear that John did object both against them for their evil lives and for pretending that they should have Baptism from the pretence that Abraham is their father according to the Law as before said Therefore we stand to our plea that Matth. 3.8 9. is not onely against Infants baptism in the general but also against the very consequence which from Circumcision whereby Abraham is a father according to the Law is pretended to uphold the same And therefore children were not baptized by John as though as Mr. S. sayth p. 47. they were neglected by John as though he could not have got time to attend to baptize them but John did not baptize them because they were not Abraham's seed according to the faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9. that is they were not actually believers otherwise John would not have been guilty of such partiality and injustice for John refused none but such and all such whatsoever as in whom there was not the appearance of the fruits of faith and repentance Acts 15.1 2 3 4.
make him tedious to the Reader as what he hath alleadged in Christ's being baptized by John chap. 19. pag. 162. with his conceited Question Whether Christ did preach before he did baptize All these Chapters being but strife of words and doubtful disputations I not striving for mastery but onely as engaged endeavouring to undeceive the deluded people in holding forth the Truth I seeing no edification for me to follow the flying shadows of needless conjectures altogether as unedifying as endless genealogies Therefore onely to the last Chapter wherein Mr. S. holdeth forth pag. 166. That Baptism doth not form a Church I answer That though Baptism doth no more form a Church then it formeth a believer no Church hath been found or acknowledged which hath not been baptized Therefore though through the falling away from the Faith Christians can experience that the work of grace in giving a seal to the Ministery and thereupon there hath been a yeelding up of one another to serve God with one consent whereby a Church hath been gathered before these members as in the Churches of all Independents they have been baptized yet if the said Independent Churches should in mercy have their eys opened as some can experience to see and submit to the minde of Christ in the Order of the Gospel whereby the first that is in baptism be last discovered then in this extraordinary work of grace the work of grace upon full trial being approved of that the said Church be found to be gathered Saints and the seal of the Ministery then the said Church as a houshold of faithful without breaking their relation of Pastor and Flock they may be baptized For we must not build upon another mans foundation Christ himself owning the man that cast out devils though he followed not the Apostles And though the Spouses sister want two brests yet was she owned for their sister Cant. 8.8 So that whatsoever work of God is wrought it is to be acknowledged provided that the Pastor of the said Church be baptized by such a Pastor of a Church that is under the practice of Baptism Thus much in answer to Mr. S's book as it relates unto Baptism To conclude I shall onely make answer to that which Mr. S. first objected against the doctrine of Baptism and concerning the denying of singing of Psalms in his Epistle Dedicatory Mr. S. Epist Dedic I have treated upon these two subjects viz. denying of Infant-baptism and singing of Psalms which eat mens affections and creep at the heart like a gangrene insensibly An Opinion that hath been always ominous and of a wonderful strange influence accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of Errours since the first Embryo of it was brought forth whether by the judgement of God or from its natural and secret connexion with other principles of darkness I will not determine onely God hath shewed some black characters upon it in every nation where it hath prevailed though we cannot but say Many Saints are innocently under the power of it To which I return this answer That Hypocrites drawn out of the element of the world receiving the new wine of the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven into the old bottles of their hearts Hymenius-like have made shipwrack of their profession makes not the Opinion always ominous nor doth the abuse of drink condemn the lawful enjoyment of the creature For if you had but tasted you might have experienced that the doctrine of baptizing of believers doth like all other Truths Joh. 17.17 so sanctifie and work through Christ such a spiritual union with Christ and all his Saints that indeed a blinde and profane soul cannot live in the element of it And therefore if any such appear that have owned it they either forsake the Church or they are cut off by the Church as withered branches however the evil complained of if ever it be visible though a Gangrene may be cured with the knife of Excommunication Yet on the contrary such inevitable evils attend Infant-Baptism that it is the very heart-blood and pulse of the soul of Antichrist and the onely partition-wall which hinders the communion of Saints and the greatest let to the gathering and uniting of all Saints into Truth and Church-fellowship that can be So that as long as it is in practice the smoak shall not fully vanish out of the Temple And therefore such black characters do point it out it being built upon the foundation of wrested consequences implicite faith blinde charity and pretended antiquity that Antichrist himself and all the profane sons of the world plead their own birthright-priviledge in it and rest under the cover or shelter of it Though I must with Mr. Sidenham conclude that many Saints do acknowledge it and as owned by the world do decry it And therefore it is to be hoped that as the Saints shall be more fully informed Saint-like they will renounce it and will submit Christ like unto the Ordinance of Baptism The second thing in controversie is the denying of singing of Psalms of which Mr. S. saith thus I hope when mens Hearts come in tune their Voices will likewise The former denies more fundamental principles as the Covenant in its extent and subjects the freeness of grace the riches of it working in the New Testament and contracts the Gospel leaving more grace visible in the Legal and Old Testament-dispensation then in the New Answ As concerning Singing of Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs though I hope to make these to appear to be distinct which Mr. S. conceiveth to be individually united yet as to the point in controversie about Singing this I have to say That as Christ shall more and more raign he shall rouze up and gather his Saints to be baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12.14 and united into and acted with the Spirit of Christ and his Apostles that their hearts will be in tune That as Independent Churches cast off Infant-sprinkling so Churches of Christ under baptism will return as some of them for the present are unto singing And yet I finde that those that are not under the present practice dare not deny their title to the Ordinance of Singing But that denying Infant-baptism is worse or that there is any evil at all but a submission to the Ordinance and Commission of Christ in denying of Infant baptism I must needs therefore further say That to pretend baptism of Infants to be helpful to exalt free grace is absolutely to deny the grace of God to be free which is conveyed without the Ordinance of baptism And that the childe of a reprobate may be as soon under the Covenant of Free-grace as the childe of a believer And that no man can judge who are under the Covenant of Free grace and who are not And therefore we do not baptize upon this account but as we see grace faith and consent visibly appearing And therefore their pretended light that will baptize the children of believers onely as